Book Review: The Irrational Atheist: Dissecting the Unholy Trinity of
Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens by Vox Dayby Rich Deem

Introduction

Vox Day (pen name for Theodore Beale) has written a new book
The
Irrational Atheist, which takes on authors Richard Dawkins (The God
Delusion),
Sam Harris (The End of Faith) and Christopher Hitchens (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything).
Day, a gaming programmer and member of Mensa, is simply brilliant in his
analysis of the writings of the new atheists. For the most part, Vox Day sticks
to dissecting the logic and sources atheists use to support their new
"theology." However, on occasion, he lashes out with some humorous personal
attacks. One gets the impression Day gets extremely frustrated with the antics
of Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens and just wants to slap them upside the head to
knock some sense in there. There are a few occasions where Day goes way over the
top, so keep that in mind as you are reading. Day's purpose in writing
The
Irrational Atheist is:

"...I am confident that I will convince you that this trio of New
Atheists, this Unholy Trinity, are a collection of faux-intellectual frauds
utilizing pseudo-scientific sleight of hand in order to falsely claim that
religious faith is inherently dangerous and has no place in the modern
world."

Atheist myths

There is no evidence or arguments for God's existence in the book, so it is
"safe" for atheists to read without feeling being preached at. However, atheists
will find no comfort in Day's writing, as he smashes some common atheists'
myths. Here are some of the highlights:

Atheists claim that atheists make up a smaller percent of prison
populations that their theists counterparts. However, surveys indicate that
those who profess no religion are four times more likely to be incarcerated
than their Christian counterparts. (Page 20)

Religion hinders scientific progress. It turns out that one of the most
religious countries (the United States) produces 28.7% more scientific
output per capita than the most atheistic one (France). (Pages 58-59)

Cities in blue (Democratic) states are safer than cities in red
(Republican) states. It actually turns out that the safest cities might be
in blue states, but those cities are within red counties. Likewise, the most
dangerous cities are within red states, but the counties that those cities
are within are blue. Harris's argument is completely wrong. (Pages 121-127)

Only religious people are responsible for destruction of art and
religious architecture. Day points out that Dawkins's argument has failed to
point out the 41,000 churches destroyed the Soviet atheists, and thousands
of Buddhist temples destroyed in Tibet, North Korea, and Vietnam, as they
attempted to persecute religious belief out of existence. (Pages 143-144)

Hitler was a Christian. Although Adolf Hitler made Christian-like
statements when attempting to get elected to political office, once
installed, he hated Christianity, and planned to replace it with a religion
based upon racial eugenics. (Pages 209-214)

The Spanish Inquisition was an unprovoked example of religious excess.
In reality, Day gives a probable reason:"While historians such as Henry
Kamen pronounce themselves baffled as to what could have provoked the
Spanish crown, the most likely impetus was that on July 28, three months
before Ferdinandís decision to appoint the two inquisitors, a Turkish fleet
led by Gedik Ahmed Pasha attacked the Aragonese city of Otranto. Otranto
fell on August 11 and more than half of the cityís 20,000 people were
slaughtered during the sack of the city. The archbishop was killed in the
cathedral, and the garrison commander was killed by being sawed in half
alive, as was a bishop named Stephen Pendinelli. But the most infamous event
was when the captured men of Otranto were given the choice to convert to
Islam or die; 800 of them held to their Christian faith and were beheaded en
masse at a place now known as the Hill of the Martyrs. The Turkish fleet
then went on to attack the cities of Vieste, Lecce, Taranto, and Brindisi,
and destroyed the great library at the Monastero di San Nicholas di Casole,
before returning to Ottoman territory in November." (Pages 214-220)

Atheists would never commit atrocities. In a chapter entitled, "The Red
Hand of Atheism," Day shows that atheist regimes of the 20th
century have committed far worse atrocities than all religious atrocities
combined. According to Day, "...the average atheist crime against humanity
is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by
Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number
of opportunities with which to commit them." The unholy trinity's attempt
explain away the murderous acts of atheists shows the logical errors and
double standard for those within their own camps. (Pages 233-250)

Logical Errors

One of Day's most interesting "twists" is to turn the tables on atheists and
blame the potential destruction of mankind on atheistic science. Although the
atheists say that religion is a threat to humanity's existence, it is this past
century's science that has provided the means by which the human race could be
completely destroyed. So what religion has been unable to accomplish in several
thousand years of conflict, modern science could accomplish in mere hours.
Atheists decry blaming science when the application of science is done for evil
purposes. However, no such deflection is ever given for theists who misapply
theology as they commit evil in the name of their religion. The double standard
is quite striking! Day's point is not to blame science for the evils committed
in the use of its technology, but to show the illogical argument of atheists who
blame wacko "followers" of a religion for evil they commit, despite the fact
that those acts are specifically decried in those religious teachings (pages
43-60).

Sam Harris use the "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy in trying to explain
away the tens of millions of killings done by 20th century atheists.
The argument goes something like this:

Harris: Atheists donít kill people because they have no good reason to
do so.

Response: Stalin and Mao were atheists and they killed millions of
people.

Harris: Then Stalin and Mao were No True Atheists. (Pages 127-133)

Regarding the design of the universe, Dawkins is quoted as saying, "A God
capable of calculating the Goldilocks values for the six numbers would have to
be at least as improbable as the finely tuned combination of numbers itself."
However, the six numbers have been calculated by physicist Martin Rees, who
seems to exist despite the improbability! (Page 153)

Dawkins's claim that the designer must be more complex than its design
directly contradicts his own explanation for the anthropic principle (the
"apparent" design of the universe). Dawkins says that the multiverse theory
(which is backed by zero evidence) could explain the origin of the universe.
However, according to his own logic, this multiverse as designer must be more
complex than the universes it creates, which makes the multiverse infinitely
more improbable than our own improbable universe. Great use of logic Dawkins!
(Pages 156-159)

In a rather humorous section, Day quotes Christopher Hitchens saying, "what
can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." Day
takes him quite literally, and list 51 assertions that Hitchens fails to support
in any way. According to Hitchens's own logic, all those claims should be
dismissed without evidence, which Day does (Pages 167-171).

Daniel Dennett, left out of the "unholy trinity," because you couldn't have a
trinity of four, is, nonetheless, not left out of Day's book. Dennett believes
in "moral democracy," in which the majority decides what is moral or immoral.
Day, points out the majority elected both Adolf Hitler in Germany and Hamas in
Palestine, pointing out that moral democracy is no guarantee that the majority
will, in fact, be moral (Page 188-189).

Conclusion

The
Irrational Atheist is excellent at examining the arguments of atheists
Richard Dawkins,
Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett showing where those
arguments are contradicted by the facts of logic. Vox Day's style is
engaging, although he resorts to occasional ad hominem
attacks. Still, the book is one of the best at dissecting the arguments
of the "new atheists."